Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the past 30 years, midline catheter use has grown rapidly. For several reasons, many providers and facilities are attempting to reduce the number of central venous catheters and subsequent central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) by using midline catheters. Vessel preservation requires attention to all vascular access device (VAD)-associated complications and not only central line bloodstream infection. There is still much confusion about the appropriate tip location and the characteristics of fluids and medications that can safely be infused through a midline catheter residing in a peripheral vein. The Infusion Therapy Standards of Practice (the Standards) focuses on assessment of characteristics of infusion therapies that must be considered for VAD selection as an evidence-based list of fluids and medications for infusion through peripheral veins has yet to be established. This review of midline catheter studies evaluates the evidence regarding the substitution of a midline catheter for a central venous catheter. Many issues need to be addressed, such as studies that include an outcome list that mixes defined clinical complications (eg, thrombosis) with signs and symptoms of complications (eg, leaking). Another issue is basing a major change of clinical practice on retrospective chart reviews. Although a midline catheter may be appropriate for some patients, additional studies of a higher level of evidence are needed before this major practice change should occur.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".